What do you think the general Canadian population's opinion on this is? Are they for this double standard? If anything, they should and probably do feel resentful that they are held to a lower level of trust than the Sikhs are as far as carrying sharp pointy objects into courtrooms, regardless of religious beliefs, even if the chances of them being abused are small.

You really should try and think outside the box of this sacred Constitution of yours. You might think it makes us better than those Americans, but did the people of Canada really get any vote and say on whether exceptions of this sort should be made to "accomodate" other religious beliefs, or would that be "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner" to you?

What do you think the general Canadian population's opinion on this is? Are they for this double standard? If anything, they should and probably do feel resentful that they are held to a lower level of trust than the Sikhs are as far as carrying sharp pointy objects into courtrooms, regardless of religious beliefs, even if the chances of them being abused are small.

You really should try and think outside the box of this sacred Constitution of yours. You might think it makes us better than those Americans, but did the people of Canada really get any vote and say on whether exceptions of this sort should be made to "accomodate" other religious beliefs, or would that be "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner" to you?

You equate compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with "pandering to special interest groups"?? That is a very odd formulation.

As explained numerous times in this thread there is no "double standard". The whole point of the Charter is it allows a minority to protect its rights (such as religious freedom) and to do so you must of course be a member of that minority group. That seems to be something that you continually fail to comprehend. That is not a "double standard" it is simply a fact of how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to operate.

As the Supreme Court has noted it is the uninformed and ignorant that need to learn basic values of our Canadian democracy if they are resentful of an Amritdhari Khalsa Sikh carrying a recognized symbol of the Sikh religion and that is integral to their religion - in this case one of the "5Ks".

Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society. If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instil in their students this value that is, as I will explain in the next section, at the very foundation of our democracy.

In this case the kirpan issue was studied carefully by the BC Justice Ministry and consulted the Sheriff's branch who provide security in the courts who had no issue with Amritdhari Khalsa Sikhs carrying a kirpan as long as there is compliance with the conditions set out in the policy. And ultimately if a Sheriff has any security concerns he/she retains the absolute discretion to refuse a particular person to enter the courthouse with a kirpan.

The SCOC decision in the case cited balanced the degree of potential risk with the infringement upon the right to religious freedom and concluded after a detailed review of the available evidence... "the existence of concerns relating to safety must be unequivocally established for the infringement of a constitutional right to be justified. Given the evidence in the record, it is my opinion that the respondents’ argument in support of an absolute prohibition — namely that kirpans are inherently dangerous — must fail."

Your argument that. "even if the chances of them being abused are small" as I have noted numerous times in this thread has thus been categorically rejected. See: http://forum.canucks.../#entry11297293

It does not matter what the opinion may or may not be be of the "general Canadian population". The whole point of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that it protects minority and individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. This is the most basic concept of the foundations of our law and democratic system in Canada. As the SCOC noted in the Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 democracy is much more than just a vote of the majority and must be read in the light of the principle of protection of minorities as well as principles such as constitutionalism and the rule of law, federalism and judicial independence.

And then you must also consider the issue in light of the value of multiculturalism that is also entrenched in our Constitution.

Multicultural heritage

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Do they no longer teach such basic civics and history in our schools?

The Constitution is "sacred" in the sense that it is the supreme law of the land and it sets out values to which Canada adheres. In the event that sufficient people are opposed to a certain right, freedom of value, they are free to seek a Constitutional amendment.

Yes there were votes on the patriation of the Constitution and enactment of the Charter following many years of negotiation between the federal and provincial governments. This process was in accordance with the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re a Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753 (also known as the Patriation Reference). In that case while the majority, found that the federal government had the legal authority to unilaterally seek the amendment of the Constitution without consent of the provinces by constitutional conventions that exist in Canada a majority found that the federal government's plan to seek the amendment of the Constitution without provincial consent did indeed violate such a convention which was not legally enforceable but carried great weight nonetheless. That convention required the federal government to seek and obtain a substantial degree of provincial consent.

The SCOC had spoken clearly and authoritatively, and it had to be followed, sending Trudeau and the provinces back to the negotiating table (from which they emerged, Quebec dissenting, with the compromise that became the Canada Act 1982, the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.) In the result the federal government sought and obtained the consent of nine of the ten provinces with Quebec pulling out at the last moment ("a substantial degree of provincial consent") which was then signified by votes in Parliament and the various provincial legislatures - as is common in our system of representative democracy.

The process of patriation was lawful and in accordance with constitutional convention despite what some in Quebec have tried to claim, the patriated Constitution is binding upon that province. In any event under the principle of waiver and acquiescence Quebec by availing itself of the provisions of the patriated Constitution (including the use of the S. 33 notwithstanding clause), clearly has no viable argument to dispute that it is subject to the patriated Constitution.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 14 April 2013 - 09:31 AM.

1

To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

You equate compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with "pandering to special interest groups"?? That is a very odd formulation.

As explained numerous times in this thread there is no "double standard". The whole point of the Charter is it allows a minority to protect its rights (such as religious freedom) and to do so you must of course be a member of that minority group. That seems to be something that you continually fail to comprehend. That is not a "double standard" it is simply a fact of how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to operate.

From a logical, physical and literal standpoint, it is a double standard. One guy can take in a blade, and another can't. And no, it's not a matter of not understanding it. It's a matter of not accepting it. As a nonreligious secularist pragmatist, I believe there should be no bending the rules for any religion. If it's not a medical requirement, it should not be admitted. The state should neither make exceptions for nor against any religious groups.

As the Supreme Court has noted it is the uninformed and ignorant that need to learn basic values of our Canadian democracy if they are resentful of an Amritdhari Khalsa Sikh carrying a recognized symbol of the Sikh religion and that is integral to their religion - in this case one of the "5Ks".

Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society. If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instil in their students this value that is, as I will explain in the next section, at the very foundation of our democracy.

Nice to see them hijacking the kids from their parents and brainwashing them through our schools and hijacking them from their parents by teaching them prescribed values. Ideology should never be preached in our public schools.

It does not matter what the opinion may or may not be be of the "general Canadian population". The whole point of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that it protects minority and individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. This is the most basic concept of the foundations of our law and democratic system in Canada. As the SCOC noted in the Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 democracy is much more than just a vote of the majority and must be read in the light of the principle of protection of minorities as well as principles such as constitutionalism and the rule of law, federalism and judicial independence.

Nanny state and Big Brother at work deciding what's best for everyone and what can and cannot be voted on. Thankfully, we don't call ourselves the "Land of the Free".

From a logical, physical and literal standpoint, it is a double standard. One guy can take in a blade, and another can't. And no, it's not a matter of not understanding it. It's a matter of not accepting it. As a nonreligious secularist pragmatist, I believe there should be no bending the rules for any religion. If it's not a medical requirement, it should not be admitted. The state should neither make exceptions for nor against any religious groups.

It is not a double standard form any standpoint. You have demonstrated an inability to comprehend basic concepts through this thread.

You can believe what you wish but that does not change reality. The first thing that would have to happen to reach your vision of Canada would be to remove the guarantee to freedom of religion. I do not see that happening anytime in the near future but you are free to have at it and try to amend the Charter.

Nice to see them hijacking the kids from their parents and brainwashing them through our schools and hijacking them from their parents by teaching them prescribed values. Ideology should never be preached in our public schools.

Education about basic democratic values and our Constitution is brainwashing?

If so it seems you would have benefited greatly from such "brainwashing".

Nanny state and Big Brother at work deciding what's best for everyone and what can and cannot be voted on. Thankfully, we don't call ourselves the "Land of the Free".

The patriation package was voted upon as I set out. You do understand what a representative democracy is, do you not?

1

To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

It is not a double standard form any standpoint. You have demonstrated an inability to comprehend basic concepts through this thread.

You can believe what you wish but that does not change reality. The first thing that would have to happen to reach your vision of Canada would be to remove the guarantee to freedom of religion. I do not see that happening anytime in the near future but you are free to have at it and try to amend the Charter.

Education about basic democratic values and our Constitution is brainwashing?

If so it seems you would have benefited greatly from such "brainwashing".

The patriation package was voted upon as I set out. You do understand what a representative democracy is, do you not?

every time I read a wetcoaster post, it starts with something like this

It is not a double standard form any standpoint. You have demonstrated an inability to comprehend basic concepts through this thread.

You can believe what you wish but that does not change reality. The first thing that would have to happen to reach your vision of Canada would be to remove the guarantee to freedom of religion. I do not see that happening anytime in the near future but you are free to have at it and try to amend the Charter.

It is a double standard if you take religion to be irrelevant, which is exactly what we, in a modern, secular and enlightened society should be striving for in the 21st century. Freedom of religion is fine, but no law or public institution should have to cater to the specific aspects of any. Maybe a couple of more generations of this forced and socially engineered "multiculturalism" will bring about so much conflict that they'll one day impose the French approach to secularism.

Education about basic democratic values and our Constitution is brainwashing?

If so it seems you would have benefited greatly from such "brainwashing".

Teaching them about values is one thing. Instilling the values (as mentioned in that quote) into them is something else altogether.

The patriation package was voted upon as I set out. You do understand what a representative democracy is, do you not?

So politicians got to vote on our behalf, not we the common ordinary people. I'm pretty sure this form of "democracy" failed to actually bring about the will of the people on this particular issue, among plenty of others.

No, it means that I don't agree with them and don't take the Constitution for gospel, unlike yourself.

The Constitution is our supreme law "and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect" - sounds like the Constitution must be taken for gospel. Seems pretty clear language.

1

To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

It is a double standard if you take religion to be irrelevant, which is exactly what we, in a modern, secular and enlightened society should be striving for in the 21st century. Freedom of religion is fine, but no law or public institution should have to cater to the specific aspects of any. Maybe a couple of more generations of this forced and socially engineered "multiculturalism" will bring about so much conflict that they'll one day impose the French approach to secularism.

Teaching them about values is one thing. Instilling the values (as mentioned in that quote) into them is something else altogether.

So politicians got to vote on our behalf, not we the common ordinary people. I'm pretty sure this form of "democracy" failed to actually bring about the will of the people on this particular issue, among plenty of others.

Except freedom of religion is a foundational value and entrenched in the Charter - to simply deny it as you do does not make it so. Our law in this area is clear - federal and provincial government laws, practises and institutions must make reasonable accommodation for minority rights, including freedom of religion.

Your approach is best typified by this image:

There are certain basic democratic values that should be instilled - such as respect for minority rights including religious tolerance:

Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society. If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instil in their students this value that is, as I will explain in the next section, at the very foundation of our democracy.

You obviously are unfamiliar with our system of representative (aka indirect) democracy. It is derived from the British Westminster system and as our Constitution provides we in Canada adopted "constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom" that is how we roll. We did vote and the federal and provincial governments had a mandate to patriate the Constitution.

1

To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.